Jump to content

cfelliot

  • Posts

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Freshman Member
  1. If you need USB, I don't, add the MiniDSP USBStreamer product!
  2. I really want to wait on these until some brave person bits first and then reports back. A note on Ozzy's solo albums. Any versions after the 1995 mixes have the bass and drum tracks replaced with new artists. Because of some conflict, they didn't want to pay royalties to the original artists. Maybe a good business move, but I think it's a pretty slick thing to do.
  3. I had already purchased this on CD when HDTracks offered it in 96/24. I couldn't resist so I bought it. It sounds great, but I noticed that it was 88.2/24 not 96/24 so I sent HDTracks a quick note: This is not 96/24 rather 88.2/24 To which I received: The album is definitely in 96/24. It is as the record label record and mastered for high res. I'm sorry you don't feel that way but it is in 96/24. - Stephan (Support) Thinking the J River Media Center might be doing something on playback, I opened the FLAC file with Sony Sound Forge and it also says 88.2/24. I find HDTrack's reply very arrogant and condescending!
  4. Steve, I don't subscribe to all the graphs etc normally. This actually was the first time I looked at one of my files. I usually just go by how it sounds. The question I have a hard time wrapping my mind around is how frequency content that my ears hears can't possibly hear makes such a difference to the likes of soundstage etc. If you can point me to a link or something that rationalizes why, it would be greatly appreciated. Chuck
  5. Goofy? What's wrong with a little experimenting. And, it does sound better - less harsh! I don't pretend to be an expert in any way, so I ask the following with all due respect. Why should I care about what I can't hear especially when the region is filled with crap as this recording is. Enlighten me?
  6. I see the same 30kHz and above with Adobe Audition. I processed the files with a brick wall FFT filter at 25kHz - seems to sound better.
  7. Nice piece! I would add the following: I also use a SSD as my OS drive too and have others for data. Along with the pagefile, it is important to get the temp files off of the SSD. I create a Temp folder on one of the other drives and redirect the browser cache(temp files) to a folder there. That and I set the environment variables TMP and TEMP to point at a folder there too. To speed up backup I don't use external USB drives. Since most new computers have an eSata connector on the rear, I suggest using an eSata external drive. Thermaltake makes a great enclosure for this: http://www.thermaltakeusa.com/Product.aspx?C=1285&ID=2034 For backup I use Symantec System Recovery Desktop Version and to do scheduled image backups. Full once a week incremental the rest of the week. This is a great product which has saved my ass several times. One nice thing about SSR is that you can open a backup attached to a drive letter and restore an old version of a file very easily.And, you can get it for about $60.
  8. The USB connection on the XDA-1 has limitations and I wouldn't suggest its use as such. When connecting directly via SPDIF (Coax or Toslink) either as you suggest or via a direct link it is very good.
  9. Love Mine! I also use optical Spdif and control the volume with my preamp.
  10. "The .wav files would have deteriorated a little due to....?" "wideband noise?" Deteriorated how? What noise? We're talking digital file transfer here. CRCs, Checksums and other packet protocol methods guard against data loss or corruption during transmission. If two files are binary identical then they ARE IDENTICAL!!! If there is no access bottleneck then they will process identically!! God help our bank statements if this isn't so. The attack of the "Ghost Pennies". I have been a software engineer for over 30 years. I will keep an open mind and research your references, but I have a real hard time with this. Chuck
  11. "Differences between uploads of .wav files that I provided, which had identical MD5 checksums?" If the two files are identical then the source of the difference has to be outside of the contents of the files themselves! The only thing that I can think of is access latency caused by file fragmentation. In other words, although the file are identical at the binary level, one takes longer to read than the other from disk. I suppose the player software would have to be susceptible to this.
  12. Roch, Excuse me. The line is from Paul Klipsch. It was his motto aimed at technical double-talk and was meant as a joke. Neither offense, nor criticism intended. Downrange, You miss my point. It’s not comparing WAV to WAV. The exercise is just to demonstrate that a FLAC file contains all the data and therefore if a difference is perceived between a WAV file and a FLAC file on playback, the reason is not the file format. "unspooling"? "real time"? Elaborate? The file size of the WAV file and the FLAC file are irrelevant. It is not the input format that matters. It is the resultant output data created by the decoder. If the data can be uncompressed by a program to 100% of its original content, the playback software should be able to do the same. I'm not saying that one format might sound different than the other on some players. If it does, the problem is not the file format.
  13. I performed a test tonight using various software. 1) I ripped a Vivaldi selection from a favorite CD into a WAV file using a program I have called “Audio Transcoder” 2) I then converted the WAV file to FLAC using another program “WAV MP3 Converter” 3) I used J. River Media Center to convert the FLAC back to WAV 4) Using a 4th program call “Beyond Compare”, I compared the 2 WAV files. The only binary differences between the 2 files are a few header bytes and J.River puts a big empty block at the end of the file. The rest of the data is an exact duplicate. Conclusion: FLAC IS a completely lossless format. The PC is just a data silo and processor. Any differences are due to the player software not the data format!
  14. ....on a PC whose operating system is designed to handle almost everything except precision audio) can severely degrade sound quality.... Elaborate... As long as we are not talking a soundcard DAC and the external DAC re-clocks the data to avoid jitter what is the source? I've had my PC doing several other processes and never heard the music distort even at 96k/24b?
  15. Whatever.............. I just know this, I own both the original CD and the DVDA version. The DVDA in 2 channel(96/24) blows away the original CD!
×
×
  • Create New...